1

Introduction to EC7 Part 1:

Design and verification procedures

Parameter characterisation

Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics
BP188.1
Northern Ireland Geotechnical Group Seminar on EC7
11 April 2013




2
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
3
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
4
Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical design
1957: European Economic Community Treaty of Rome
1975: Commission of the European Community - Eurocodes
1981: European national geotechnical societies
1987: First draft EC7
1989: Comit Europen de Normalisation (CEN/TC250/SC7)
1994/5: ENV1997 (European Vornorm) +NADs
2004: EN1997-1 +UK National Annex (2007?)
2007: EN1997-2 +UK National Annex (2008??)
2009: EN1997-1 corrigendum
Main discipline? Ever used Eurocodes? Ever used EC7?
5

The Eurocode system BP72.9 BP106.3 BP111.4 BP112.4 BP124-T1.9

24. 3
The Eurocode system (CEN-TC250)
EN 1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel
and concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for
earthquake resistance.
EN 1999 Eurocode 9 Design of aluminium alloy structures
Other related documents: CEN, commentaries, websites
6
The whole range of documents
Design:
BSEN1997-1
BSEN1997-2
Ground
properties
CEN/TC341
Standards
ISO/CEN
Standards
Other Structural
Eurocodes
e.g. EC3 Part 5
Execution
Standards
CEN/TC288

Geotechnical
Projects

NCCI
eg PD6694-1
7
This picture shows an
Execution BP190a.13
BP195a.115

In Eurocodes, you execute the design
not the designer! BP124-T1.35
8
Euronorms
Execution of special geotechnical works (TC288)
EN 1536: 1999 Bored piles
EN 1537: 1999 Ground anchors
EN 1537: 1999 Ground anchors - Corrigendum
EN 1538: 2000 Diaphragm walls
EN 12063: 1999 Sheet-pile walls
EN 12699: 2000 Displacement piles
EN 12715: 2000 Grouting
EN 12716: 2001 Jet grouting
EN 14199: 2005 Micropiles
EN 14475: 2006 Reinforced fill
EN14475: 2006 Reinforced fill - Corrigendum
EN 14679: 2005 Deep mixing
EN14679: 2006 Deep mixing - Corrigendum
EN14731: 2005 Ground treatment by deep vibration
EN15237: 2007 Vertical drainage


9
The whole range of documents
Design:
BSEN1997-1
BSEN1997-2
Ground
properties
CEN/TC341
Standards
ISO/CEN
Standards
Other Structural
Eurocodes
e.g. EC3 Part 5
Execution
Standards
CEN/TC288

Geotechnical
Projects

NCCI
eg PD6694-1
10
The whole range of documents
Design:
BSEN1997-1
BSEN1997-2
Ground
properties
CEN/TC341
Standards
ISO/CEN
Standards
Other Structural
Eurocodes
e.g. EC3 Part 5
Execution
Standards
CEN/TC288

Geotechnical
Projects

NCCI
eg PD6694-1
11
NCCI, PDs, Residual Documents and BSs
(NCCI =Non-Conflicting Complementary Information)
CEN required that conflicting national standards were withdrawn by 2010.

Published Documents BSI documents which do not have the status of a BS but
provide NCCI.

PD 6694-1, Recommendations for the design of structures subject to traffic loading to
BS EN 1997-1
- Advises a slightly higher FOS for non-embedded highway walls

Where does this leave other BSs?
- BS8002 Earth retaining structures withdrawn 31 March 2010.
CIRIA C580 to be revised?
- BS8004 Foundations withdrawn 31 March 2010.
- BS8006 Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills revised
- BS8081 Ground anchorages unchanged for the time being
- BS6031 Earthworks revised possible EN to be drafted.
- BS1377 Soil testing being revised
- BS5930 Site investigation revised consistent with EC7

12
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
13
Limit state design
states beyond which the
structure no longer satisfies
the relevant design criteria
partial factor design ?
probabilistic design ?
concentration on what might
go wrong
14
EN 1990 3.3 Ultimate limit states
Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.
Must be rendered very unlikely. An unrealistic possibility.
15
EN 1990 3.3 Ultimate limit states
Serious failures involving risk of injury or major cost.
Must be rendered very unlikely. An unrealistic possibility.
16
EN1990 3.4 Serviceability limit states
Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.
Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them
completely.
17
EN1990 3.4 Serviceability limit states
Inconveniences, disappointments and more manageable costs.
Should be rare, but it might be uneconomic to eliminate them
completely.
18
Limit state design
An understanding of limit state design can be obtained
by contrasting it with working state design.
Working state design: Analyse the expected, working
state, then apply margins of safety.
Limit state design: Analyse the unexpected states at
which the structure has reached an unacceptable limit.
Make sure the limit states are unrealistic (or at least
unlikely).


19
Soil failure without geometrical instability (large displacements)??
BP190a.28

20
Grand Egyptian Museum
Governed by SLS
21
Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building
22
Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building
23
Sand and clays
Governed by long term
bearing capacity (ULS)
Careful consideration of
relevant load
combinations
24
Coventry University Engineering and Computing Building
25
Fundamental limit state requirement
E
d
R
d

E{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
}
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}
or E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
= R
n

R
(LRFD)

or
E
E
k
= E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
so in total

E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
E = action effects d = design (= factored)
F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
26
Fundamental limit state requirement
E
d
R
d

E{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
}
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}
or E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
= R
n

R
(LRFD)

or
E
E
k
= E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
so in total

E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
E = action effects d = design (= factored)
F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
27
EN1990
6.3.1 Design values of actions
Load combination factors are used to avoid
unreasonable coincidence of variable actions.
28
EN1990
6.3.3 Design values of material or product properties
29
EN1990
6.3.3 Design values of material or product properties
30
Partial factors
For material strengths X:
Design value =characteristic value /
m
X
d
=X
k
/
m

For resistances R:
R
d
=R
k
/
R

EN1990
Concrete and steel: 2 standard deviations from the mean test result.
31
BS EN 1997-1:2004
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Part 1: General rules

12 sections
Annexes A to J
National Annex to Part 1

Part 2: Ground investigation and testing

6 sections
Annexes A to X
National Annex to Part 2

32
EN 1997-1
Geotechnical design General Rules

1 General
2 Basis of geotechnical design
3 Geotechnical data
4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
6 Spread foundations
7 Pile foundations
8 Anchorages
9 Retaining structures
10 Hydraulic failure
11 Overall stability
12 Embankments

Appendices A to J
33
EC7 Chapter 1 - General
1.4 Distinction between Principles and Application Rules
(1) Depending on the character of the individual clauses, distinction is made in EN
1997-1 between Principles and Application Rules.
(2) The Principles comprise:
general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative;
requirements and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted
unless specifically stated.
(3) The Principles are preceded by the letter P.
(4) The Application Rules are examples of generally recognised rules, which follow the
Principles and satisfy their requirements.
(5) It is permissible to use alternatives to the Application Rules given in this standard,
provided it is shown that the alternative rules accord with the relevant Principles
and are at least equivalent with regard to the structural safety, serviceability and
durability, which would be expected when using the Eurocodes.
NOTE If an alternative design rule is submitted for an application rule, the resulting
design cannot be claimed to be wholly in accordance with EN 1997-1, although
the design will remain in accordance with the Principles of EN 1997-1.
shall
should
34
EN 1997-1
Geotechnical design General Rules

1 General
2 Basis of geotechnical design
3 Geotechnical data
4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
6 Spread foundations
7 Pile foundations
8 Anchorages
9 Retaining structures
10 Hydraulic failure
11 Overall stability
12 Embankments

Appendices A to J
35

EN1990 3.4 Serviceability limit states
EN1990 Serviceability limit states BP87.49 BP106.15 BP111.9 BP112.11 BP124-T1.42 BP168.29
Analysis and considerations much as before:
displacement, settlement, etc.
Less reliance on factors of safety.
Great needs and opportunities for development.
36
2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States
3
6
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
(EQU);
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, including
e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance (STR);
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy)
or other vertical actions (UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
(EQU);
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, including
e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance (STR);
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy)
or other vertical actions (UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).
37
2.4.7 Ultimate limit states STR, GEO
38
2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States
3
8
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
(EQU);
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, including
e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance (STR);
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy)
or other vertical actions (UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).
2.4.7.1 General
(1)P Where relevant, it shall be verified that the following limit states are not exceeded:
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which the
strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance
(EQU);
internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements, including
e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance (STR);
failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance (GEO);
loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy)
or other vertical actions (UPL);
hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic gradients
(HYD).

a a
W W
M
F1 F2
b
39
Introduction to EC7 Part 1
The Eurocode system
Limit state design
Design Approaches
Characteristic values of parameters
Quick flick through Section 2
40
Fundamental limit state requirement
E
d
R
d

E{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
}
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}
or E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
= R
n

R
(LRFD)

or
E
E
k
= E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
so in total

E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
E = action effects d = design (= factored)
F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
41
2.4.7 Ultimate Limit States
42
2.4.7.3.3 Design resistances
2.4.7.3.3 Design resistances
(1) Partial factors may be applied either to ground properties (X) or resistances (R) or to
both, as follows:
R
d
=R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} (2.7a)
or
R
d
=R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
; a
d
}/
R
(2.7b)
or
R
d
=R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
(2.7c)


E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R

Three different
Design Approaches
43
Annex A - Partial and correlation factors for
ultimate limit states and recommended values
Values recommended by the code drafters, but each nation
may specify own values.

44
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3
Combination 1-----------------Combination 2 ----------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors DA2 - Comb 1 DA2 - Slopes DA3
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or M2 R4 A1 M1 R2 A1 M=R2 A1 A2 M2 R3
Actions
unfav 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35
fav
unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Soil tan ' 1,25 1,25
StructuraGeotech
1,25
Effective cohesion 1,25 1,25
actions actions
1,25
Undrained strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Unconfined strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Weight density
Spread
Bearing 1,4
footings
Sliding 1,1
Driven
Base 1,3 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,3 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
Bored
Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,15 1,5 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
CFA
Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,1 1,4 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
Anchors
Temporary 1,1 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1 1,1
Retaining
Bearing capacity 1,4
walls
Sliding resistance 1,1
Earth resistance 1,4
Slopes
Earth resistance 1,1
indicates partial factor =1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26
Permanent
Variable
45
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Values of partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A
Design approach 1 Design approach 2 Design approach 3
Combination 1-----------------Combination 2 ----------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors DA2 - Comb 1 DA2 - Slopes DA3
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or M2 R4 A1 M1 R2 A1 M=R2 A1 A2 M2 R3
Actions
unfav 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,35
fav
unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,3
Soil tan ' 1,25 1,25
StructuraGeotech
1,25
Effective cohesion 1,25 1,25
actions actions
1,25
Undrained strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Unconfined strength 1,4 1,4 1,4
Weight density
Spread
Bearing 1,4
footings
Sliding 1,1
Driven
Base 1,3 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,3 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
Bored
Base 1,25 1,6 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,15 1,5 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
CFA
Base 1,1 1,45 1,1
piles
Shaft (compression) 1,0 1,3 1,1
Total/combined 1,1 1,4 1,1
Shaft in tension 1,25 1,6 1,15 1,1
Anchors
Temporary 1,1 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1 1,1
Retaining
Bearing capacity 1,4
walls
Sliding resistance 1,1
Earth resistance 1,4
Slopes
Earth resistance 1,1
indicates partial factor =1.0 C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls] 25-Nov-06 17:26
Permanent
Variable





































































46
Source: Andrew Bond, chair of SC7
47
Partial factors for DA1 UK National Annex B

Design approach 1
Combination 1---------------- Combination 2 ----------------Combination 2 - piles & anchors
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or M2 R4
Actions
unfav 1,35
fav
unfav 1,5 1,3 1,3
Soil tan ' 1,25 1,25
Effective cohesion 1,25 1,25
Undrained strength 1,4 1,4
Unconfined strength 1,4 1,4
Weight density
Spread
Bearing
EC7
footings
Sliding
values
Driven
Base 1,7/1.5 1,3
piles
Shaft (compression) 1.5/1.3 1,3
Total/combined 1.7/1.5 1,3
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6
Bored
Base 2.0/1.7 1,6
piles
Shaft (compression) 1.6/1.4 1,3
Total/combined 2.0/1.7 1.5
Shaft in tension 2.0/1.7 1.6
CFA
Base As 1.45
piles
Shaft (compression) for 1.3
Total/combined bored 1.4
Shaft in tension piles 1.6
Anchors
Temporary 1,1 1,1
Permanent 1,1 1,1
Retaining
Bearing capacity
walls
Sliding resistance
Earth resistance
Slopes
Earth resistance
indicates partial factor =1.0
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[Factors.xls]
Permanent
Variable
More consistent across a wide
range of geotechnical
situations, which might overlap.
Good for numerical analysis.
48
Approaches to ULS design
The merits of
Design Approach 1 in Eurocode 7
Brian Simpson
Arup Geotechnics BP145a.1 BP168.83
ISGSR2007 - First International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk
49

Footing BP72.45 BP106.53 BP111.27 BP124-A2.18 BP168-2.36
Combination 2
Comb1
Combination 1
Combination 2
50
Annex D (informative)
A sample analytical method for bearing resistance calculation
Figure D.1 Notations

51

Footing BP72.45 BP106.53 BP111.27 BP124-A2.18 BP168-2.36
Combination 2
Comb1
Combination 1
Combination 2
Combination 2 Comb1
Combination 1 B = 1.06m M = 179 kNm
Combination 2 B = 1.31m M = 164 kNm

Combination 2 with Combination 1 loads:
B = 1.31m M = 221 kNm
52

Footing BP72.45 BP106.53 BP111.27 BP124-A2.18 BP168-2.37
DA2 DA3
1000 1000
1.35 1.35
0 0
1.5 1.5
35 35
1 1.25
0 0
1 1.25
1.4 1
18 18
18 18
25 25
1.23 1.5
1392 1401
0 0
35.0 29.3
0 0
33.3 16.9
46.1 28.4
45.2 17.8
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.57 1.49
0.70 0.70
1.59 1.52
1957 1399
1398 1399
1.23 1.50
214 263
1.77 2.65
Char DA1-1 DA1-2 DA1
Vk kN 1000 1000 1000
V 1 1.35 1
Hk kN 0 0 0
H 1 1.5 1.3
35 35 35
1 1 1.25
c kPa 0 0 0
-c 1 1 1.25
-R 1 1 1
q kPa 18 18 18
kN/m3 18 18 18
-cct kN/m3 25 25 25
B (guess) m 0.92 1.06 1.31
Incl footingVd kPa 1023 1386 1033 1386
Hd kPa 0 0 0
phi-d 35.0 35.0 29.3
c-d kPa 0 0 0
Nq 33.3 33.3 16.9
Nc 46.1 46.1 28.4
Ng 45.2 45.2 17.8
iq 1.00 1.00 1.00
ig 1.00 1.00 1.00
ic 1.00 1.00 1.00
sq 1.57 1.57 1.49
sg 0.70 0.70 0.70
sc 1.59 1.59 1.52
R 1020 1399 1031
Rd 1020 1399 1031
B-req 0.92 1.05 1.31 1.31
Md 115 179 164 221
BC FOS 1.00 1.31 2.03 2.03
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[EC7.xls]
53
DA1, 2 and 3 comparisons for square footing
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Char DA1-1 DA1-2 DA1 DA2 DA3
Width cm
Md kNm/m
54

Footing BP72.45 BP106.53 BP111.27 BP124-A2.18 BP168-2.36
Combination 2
Comb1
Combination 1
Combination 2
Combination 2 Comb1
Combination 1 B = 1.06m M = 179 kNm
Combination 2 B = 1.31m M = 164 kNm

Combination 2 with Combination 1 loads:
B = 1.31m M = 221 kNm
Serviceability limit state
(settlement)
B = 2m ??? (q
working
=250 kPa)
Appl y DA1-2 ULS loads
M
ULS
= 250 kNm
Appl y DA1-1 ULS loads
M
ULS
= 326 kNm

The final design must
satisfy all the criteria
55
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
56
Fundamental limit state requirement
E
d
R
d

E{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{ F
d
; X
d
; a
d
}
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}
or E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
= R
n

R
(LRFD)

or
E
E
k
= E
d
R
d
= R
k
/
R
so in total

E
E{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
} = E
d
R
d
= R{
F
F
rep
; X
k
/
M
; a
d
}/
R
E = action effects d = design (= factored)
F = actions (loads) k = characteristic (= unfactored)
R = resistance (=capacity) rep = representative
X = material properties
a = dimensions/geometry
57
Characteristic values in EC7
58
Characteristic values in EC7 definition (2.4.5.2)
59
Characteristic values in EC7
2.4.3(4) also mentions:
60
EN1990
6.3.3 Design values of material or product properties
61
Characteristic values in EC7
62
Characteristic values in EC7 zone of ground
Cautious worse than most probable.

Small building on estuarine beds near slope
63
Characteristic values in EC7 zone of ground
64
Characteristic values in EC7 zone of ground
2.4.5.2 Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters

Thoughtful interpretation not simple averaging
65
Characteristic values in EC7 definition (2.4.5.2)
66
Characteristic values in EC7
NOT a fractile of the results of particular, specified laboratory tests on
specimens of material.
A cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state
Take account of time effects, brittleness, soil fabric and structure, the effects
of construction processes and the extent of the body of ground involved in a
limit state
The designers expertise and understanding of the ground are all encapsulated
in the characteristic value
Consider both project-specific information and a wider body of geotechnical
knowledge and experience.
Characteristic =moderately conservative =representative (BS8002) =what
good designers have always done.

71
0.5 SD below the mean?
A suggestion:
When:
a limit state depends on the value of a parameter averaged over a
large amount of ground (ie a mean value), and
the ground property varies in a homogeneous, random manner,
and
at least 10 test values are available
Then: A value 0.5SD below the mean of the test results provides a
useful indication of the characteristic value
(Contribution to Discussion Session 2.3, XIV ICSMFE, Hamburg. Balkema., Schneider H
R (1997) Definition and determination of characteristic soil properties. Discussion to
ISSMFE Conference, Hamburg.)

72
0.5 SD below the mean?
- a useful consideration, not a rule
C:\bx\EC7\[EC7.xls] 26-May-03 10:10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
5% fractile of
test resuts
5% fractile of
mean values
Results of
soil tests
Mean SD from mean
More remote when
dependent on
specific small zone.
73
A USA proposal 25% fractile
C:\BX\BX-C\EC7\[EC7a.xls] 14-May-09 11:20
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
TEST RESULTS (SD from mean)
P
R
O
B
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
5% fractile
of test
results
5% fractile of
mean values
75% exceedence
for tests
Results of
soil tests
Angle of shearing resistance



c ?
peak, critical state or residual?
Residual
The value that will prevent the exceedance of the limit state.
Caution about progressive loss of density or strength.
So caution about >38.
Suggestion: The ULS design value of the shear strength should never be greater
than a cautious (ie characteristic) estimate of the critical state strength of the
material.
Interfaces between structure and ground (wall friction, sliding etc) use critical
state value as characteristic value, and apply normal factors.
Useful guidance in BS8002 (withdrawn)

peak, critical state or residual?
Useful guidance in BS8002 (withdrawn)

Critical
state
Data from more than one source

Bored
pile
Conflicting data
The code drafters could not have known about this uncertainty
79
Eurocode 7 fundamental issues
and some implications for users.
BP145a.1 BP168.83
Nordic Geotechnical Conference,
Copenhagen, July 2012
80
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
81
EN 1997-1
Geotechnical design General Rules

1 General
2 Basis of geotechnical design
3 Geotechnical data
4 Supervision of construction, monitoring and maintenance
5 Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement
6 Spread foundations
7 Pile foundations
8 Anchorages
9 Retaining structures
10 Hydraulic failure
11 Overall stability
12 Embankments

Appendices A to J
82
EC7 Section 2 - Basis of geotechnical design
2.1 Design requirements
2.2 Design situations
2.3 Durability
2.4 Geotechnical design by calculation
2.5 Design by prescriptive measures
2.6 Load tests and tests on experimental models
2.7 Observational method
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report

83
EC7 Section 2 - Basis of geotechnical design
2 Basis of geotechnical design
2.1 Design requirements

(1)P For each geotechnical design situation it shall
be verified that no relevant limit state, as defined in
EN 1990:2002, is exceeded.
84
Design situations
85
Design situations
86
EC7 Section 2 - Basis of geotechnical design
2.1 Design requirements
2.2 Design situations
2.3 Durability
2.4 Geotechnical design by calculation
2.5 Design by prescriptive measures
2.6 Load tests and tests on experimental models
2.7 Observational method
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report

87
2.5 Design by prescriptive measures
88
2.6 Load tests and tests on experimental models
89
2.7 Observational method
90
2.7 Observational method
91

BP87.84 BP124-T1.80

92
2.8 Geotechnical Design Report
Simpson, B & Driscoll, R (1998)
Eurocode 7 - a commentary.
Construction Research Communications
Ltd, Watford, UK.
Orr TLL & Farrell E R (1999)
Geotechnical design to Eurocode 7.
Springer-Verlag.
Gulvanessian, H, Calgaro, J -A, Holicky,
M (2002) Designers' Guide to EN 1990 -
Eurocode: Basis of structural design.
Thomas Telford.
Frank, R, Bauduin, C, Driscoll, R,
Kavvadas, M, Krebs Ovesen, N, Orr, T
and Schuppener, B (2004) Designers'
Guide to EN 1997-1 - Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design - General rules.
Thomas Telford, London.
Communities and Local Government
(2007) A Designers Simple Guide to BS
EN 1997. Department for Communities
and Local Government: London.
Driscoll, R, Scott, P & Powell, J (2008)
EC7 implications for UK practice.
CIRIA Report C641.
Bond, A and Harris, A (2008) Decoding
Eurocode 7. Taylor and Francis,
London.
New from BSI
Concise EC7
Eurocodes Plus

EC7 commentaries
BP68.6 BP124-T4.7 BP168-3.44
EC7 commentaries
BP68.6 BP124-T4.7 BP168-3.44
Simpson, B & Driscoll, R (1998)
Eurocode 7 - a commentary.
Construction Research Communications
Ltd, Watford, UK.
Orr TLL & Farrell E R (1999)
Geotechnical design to Eurocode 7.
Springer-Verlag.
Gulvanessian, H, Calgaro, J -A, Holicky,
M (2002) Designers' Guide to EN 1990 -
Eurocode: Basis of structural design.
Thomas Telford.
Frank, R, Bauduin, C, Driscoll, R,
Kavvadas, M, Krebs Ovesen, N, Orr, T
and Schuppener, B (2004) Designers'
Guide to EN 1997-1 - Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design - General rules.
Thomas Telford, London.
Communities and Local Government
(2007) A Designers Simple Guide to BS
EN 1997. Department for Communities
and Local Government: London.
Driscoll, R, Scott, P & Powell, J (2008)
EC7 implications for UK practice.
CIRIA Report C641.
Bond, A and Harris, A (2008) Decoding
Eurocode 7. Taylor and Francis,
London.
New from BSI
Concise EC7
Eurocodes Plus

95
Introduction to EC7 Part 1



The Eurocode system

Limit state design

Design Approaches

Characteristic values of parameters

Quick flick through Section 2
Thanks for
your attention.